Development, construction, and content validation of a questionnaire to test mobile shower commode usability

77

Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2015;21(1):77–86© 2015 Thomas Land Publishers, Inc.www.thomasland.com

doi: 10.1310/sci2101-77

and after short- or long-term use.1,10,12,13 Some jurisdictions classify AT as Class 1 medical devices and require evidence of outcomes for device registration, product monitoring, and ongoing market surveillance.11,12,14,15

In recent years, usability has emerged as an exclusive domain of outcomes in medical11,12 and AT8,10,16 devices research. Conceptually, usability draws from human factors and ergonomics literature, focusing on interactions between the user, the device or product, and the environment during performance of tasks or activities.8,10,12 The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) defines usability as “the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, in a specified context of use” (ISO

Development, Construction, and Content Validation of a Questionnaire to Test Mobile Shower Commode Usability

Emma L. Friesen, B Engineering (MfgSys)(Hons), B Business (Mktg), M ProfEdTrain (WorkVocEdTrain), 1,2,3 Deborah G. Theodoros, BSpThyHons, PhD,1,2

and Trevor G. Russell, B Physiotherapy, PhD1,2

1School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia; 2Centre for Research Excellence in Telehealth, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia;

3NSW Paediatric Spinal Outreach Service, Northcott, North Parramatta, Australia

Background: Usability is an emerging domain of outcomes measurement in assistive technology provision. Currently, no questionnaires exist to test the usability of mobile shower commodes (MSCs) used by adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). Objective: To describe the development, construction, and initial content validation of an electronic questionnaire to test mobile shower commode usability for this population. Methods: The questionnaire was constructed using a mixed-methods approach in 5 phases: determining user preferences for the questionnaire’s format, developing an item bank of usability indicators from the literature and judgement of experts, constructing a preliminary questionnaire, assessing content validity with a panel of experts, and constructing the final questionnaire. Results: The electronic Mobile Shower Commode Assessment Tool Version 1.0 (eMAST 1.0) questionnaire tests MSC features and performance during activities identified using a mixed-methods approach and in consultation with users. It confirms that usability is complex and multidimensional. The final questionnaire contains 25 questions in 3 sections. The eMAST 1.0 demonstrates excellent content validity as determined by a small sample of expert clinicians. Conclusion: The eMAST 1.0 tests usability of MSCs from the perspective of adults with SCI and may be used to solicit feedback during MSC design, assessment, prescription, and ongoing use. Further studies assessing the eMAST’s psychometric properties, including studies with users of MSCs, are needed. Key words: assistive technology device, AT, mobile shower commodes, outcome measures, telehealth, telerehabilitation, usability

Proffered Paper

Corresponding author: Ms Emma Friesen, PhD Candidate, PO Box 3015, Putney, NSW 2112 Australia; e-mail: [email protected]

Supplementary material: The online version of this article (doi: 10.1310/sci2101-77) contains an eAppendix.

In spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation, mobile shower commodes (MSCs) are often prescribed to facilitate showering, bowel care,

and mobility.1-7 Generally, an MSC is a waterproof chair on wheels, with a seat designed to allow hand access to the perianal region for digital stimulation and stool removal.4,6 Studies on MSCs for adults with SCI have identified concerns about MSC usability, safety, dissatisfaction, and nonuse.1,3,4,6,7 Despite this, few instruments exist to guide design, assessment, and prescription of MSCs for adults with SCI.2,4,5

Increasingly, researchers, policymakers, and funders of assistive technology (AT) such as MSCs are demanding evidence of outcomes achieved through provision.1,8-10 This includes obtaining user feedback during AT design and selection11-13

78 Topics in spinal cord injury rehabiliTaTion/WinTer 2015

assessing MSC usability for adults with SCI, based on the definition from ISO 9241-11:1998.17

Methods

The questionnaire was developed and constructed using a mixed-method approach in 5 phases: (1) determining user preferences for the questionnaire’s format,12,21 (2) developing an item bank of usability indicators,22,23 (3) constructing a preliminary questionnaire,23 (4) assessing content validity,12,23 and (5) constructing the final questionnaire.23 The methods are described in terms of the study’s 5 phases.

Phase 1: Determine preferences for questionnaire format

Data regarding a possible format for a new questionnaire were collected as part of a larger qualitative interview study on use, performance, and features of MSCs for adults with SCI.6 Full details of the study are reported elsewhere.6 Briefly, 7 adults with SCI and 8 occupational therapists (OTs) with expertise in SCI rehabilitation were recruited through advertisements in Australian SCI- and AT-related listservs.6 During the interviews, participants were asked to comment on 3 possible formats for a new questionnaire: (1) a list of MSC features that users rate on a scale of 1 to 5, (2) a list of MSC features from which users could choose and rate a smaller subset on a scale of 1 to 5, or (3) a questionnaire requiring users to specify goals or outcomes of MSC use across functional activities. Participants were invited to suggest alternative formats for a questionnaire. Qualitative data were analyzed using 6 stages of thematic qualitative analysis (familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing a report),24 using Nvivo 9 (QSR Corporation, Melbourne, Australia).

Phase 2: Develop an item bank

Two methods were employed to develop an item bank of usability indicators: a review of

9241-11:1998, definition 3.1).17 For AT devices, goals relate to the performance of activities when using the device.10 Effectiveness is the user’s perceived consistency in performing activities using the AT device, while efficiency is the perceived ease, comfort, speed, accuracy, and effort with which activities are performed using the AT device.10 Satisfaction with the AT device is derived from the effectiveness and efficiency with which the user can participate in activities.10 The usability of AT devices is therefore a function of the characteristics, functions and features of the AT device, and performance of the device across the user’s activity needs, abilities, skills, expectations, and contexts of use.10

Usability of AT is generally assessed through usability inspections and usability testing. Usability inspections are undertaken by expert nonusers of the product or device,12 such as clinicians (eg, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and speech pathologists), rehabilitation engineers, AT designers, suppliers and manufacturers, and representatives of funding organizations (eg, insurance companies, not-for-profit charities, and government programs).15 They can occur, for example, during clinical assessments in AT device service delivery.

Usability testing focuses on users of the device,12 such as a person with a disability or impairment, and paid or unpaid caregivers.15 Questionnaires are often used to solicit feedback from the users’ point of view.12,14,16 Questionnaires are generally quick and cost-effective to administer11,12 and are useful where time and resources for follow-up are limited.1,3,8,18 They may be deliverable via telerehabilitation and telehealth platforms4,6,18-20 to allow completion in the user’s home.1,3,20 Studies show that adults with SCI can accurately report use of AT,3 suggesting that complex and multidimensional aspects of MSC use can be captured in this way.

Researchers contend that questionnaires should be AT device-specific,8,9,11 validated for well-defined user groups,8,9,11 and developed with input from AT device consumers.9,11,12,21 Currently, no validated questionnaires exist to assess usability of MSCs for adults with SCI.4 The aim of this study is to develop and construct a questionnaire for

Testing Mobile Commode Usability 79

the importance of usability indicators with the overall length of the questionnaire and expected time for completion.8,12,21

Phase 4: Establish content validity

Content validity is defined as the degree to which items in an instrument adequately reflect the domain of content being measured.23 Five content experts were considered adequate for assessing content validity in developing clinical instruments.26 A panel of clinicians with expertise in SCI rehabilitation were recruited as content experts to assess the questionnaire’s content validity.16,23 Content experts were identified using the recruitment strategies and inclusion criteria shown in Table 1.

Content experts were given a copy of the preliminary questionnaire and a statement regarding the questionnaire’s development.23 A standardized content evaluation questionnaire was administered via SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The content evaluation questionnaire, developed by Arthanat et al,16 comprised questions assessing the validity of items across the domains of comprehensiveness, item clarity, ease of administration, and scale clarity and 6 questions on overall validity. All items were measured on a 5-point semantic differentiation scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Opportunities for written comments were also provided.16

Content validity indices (CVIs) were calculated to measure the proportion of agreement amongst the content experts using a 3-step process. First,

research,22,23 and expert judgement solicited as part of the interviews described in phase 1.22

Published research including an exploratory literature review4 and qualitative interview study6 conducted by the authors, and a clinical assessment instrument developed by an SCI rehabilitation service,2 was reviewed and scrutinized for possible usability indicators. Data were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA).

Expert judgments were solicited during the interviews described in phase 1.6 Participants were considered experts in MSCs based on experiences as either users of MSCs for 3 or more years or as expert clinicians working in SCI rehabilitation.6 Participants were asked to rate features of ideal MSCs identified in published studies,4,6 using a scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). Quantitative data from a descriptive study where adults with SCI and caregivers rated features of ideal MSCs were also extracted into the Excel spreadsheet.25

After removing duplicates and combining similar items, possible usability indicators were sorted according to the 2 components of AT device usability: characteristics, functions, and features of MSCs; and MSC performance in activities and contexts of use.10,16

Phase 3: Construct the preliminary questionnaire

A preliminary questionnaire was drafted using qualitative data from phase 1, the item bank developed in phase 2, and consultation between the authors. Consideration was given to balancing

Table 1. Recruitment strategies and inclusion criteria for phase 4

Recruitment strategies Inclusion criteria

Expert clinicians in rehabilitation for adults with SCI

• E-mail invitation sent to the ARATA listserv.• Advertisement in Accord, the journal of Spinal Cord Injuries

Australia• E-mail invitation sent to the Australian Spinal OT listerv• Direct approach to experts who posted MSC-related advice to the

Australian Spinal OT listserv

• Five (5) or more years of experience prescribing AT for adults with SCI

• No restrictions on clinical discipline

Notes: ARATA = Australian Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology Association; MSC = mobile shower commode; OT = occupational therapy; SCI = spinal cord injury.


item response ratings in the standardized content evaluation questionnaire were converted to the content index Likert scale as follows: 1 = strongly disagree = highly invalid; 2 = invalid; 3 = somewhat valid; 4 = valid; 5 = strongly agree = highly valid.16,

26 Next, the proportion of responses for each rating on the content index Likert scale were calculated for all items. Finally, the proportion of responses rated either valid or highly valid for each item were summed to give the CVIs.16, 26

Written comments were grouped into 3 categories for review: content, format, and general.16

Phase 5: Construct the final questionnaire

Using results from phase 4, we constructed the final questionnaire.

Statement of ethics

A university medical research ethics committee approved the study protocol. All requirements concerning ethical use of human volunteers outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia and the university were followed during the course of this research. All participants gave written informed consent.

Results

A new questionnaire testing MSC usability was constructed through the 5 phases of study: establishing user preferences for the questionnaire’s format, identifying usability indicators from literature and expert judgements, constructing the draft questionnaire, assessing the questionnaire’s content validity, and finalizing the questionnaire. The results are described in terms of these 5 phases.

Phase 1: Determining preferences for questionnaire format

Characteristics of participants in phase 1 interviews are shown in Table 2. Qualitative analysis found that all participants supported development of a questionnaire assessing MSC usability. However, participants reported mixed Ta

ble

2.

Part

icip

ant

char

acte

rist

ics

for

inte

rvie

ws

(ph

ases

1 a

nd

2), e

xtra

cted

from

Fri

esen

et

al6

Ad

ult

s w

ith

SC

IE

xper

t cli

nic

ian

s

Pse

udo

nym

Age

, ye

ars

Gen

der

Self

-rep

orte

d

SCI

leve

l T

ime

pos

t SC

I, y

ears

Loca

tion

/sP

seu

dony

m

Cli

nic

al

exp

erie

nce

, ye

ars

Cli

nic

al

qual

ifica

tion

Ty

pe

of e

mp

loym

ent

Loca

tion

AS

125

Fem

ale

T9

8R

egio

nal

cit

y, c

apit

al

city

EC

115

OT

P

riva

te p

ract

ice

Cap

ital

cit

y

AS

259

M

ale

T5

6R

egio

nal

cit

yE

C 2

5O

T

Spec

ialis

t SC

I in

pati

ent

serv

ice

Cap

ital

cit

yA

S 3

49

Mal

eT

5 4

Cap

ital

cit

yE

C 3

12O

T

Spec

ialis

t SC

I in

pati

ent

serv

ice

Cap

ital

cit

yA

S 4

49

Mal

eC

3-4

30C

apit

al c

ity

EC

45

OT

Sp

ecia

list

com

mu

nit

y se

rvic

eR

egio

nal

cit

yA

S 5

32

Fem

ale

C5

3C

apit

al c

ity

EC

59

OT

Sp

ecia

list

com

mu

nit

y se

rvic

eR

egio

nal

cit

yA

S 6

37

Mal

eC

2 8

Reg

ion

al c

ity

EC

65

OT

Sp

ecia

list

com

mu

nit

y se

rvic

eC

apit

al c

ity

AS

742

Fe

mal

eT

8 27

Reg

ion

al c

ity

EC

75

OT

Sp

ecia

list

com

mu

nit

y se

rvic

eC

apit

al c

ity

EC

87

OT

Sp

ecia

list

com

mu

nit

y se

rvic

eC

apit

al c

ity

Not

e: A

S =

adu

lt w

ith

SC

I; E

C =

exp

ert

clin

icia

n; O

T =

occ

upa

tion

al t

her

apis

t.


preferences regarding the questionnaire’s format. Only one participant (an adult with SCI) supported rating every item on a list of all available MSC features. Rating a user-selected subset of features initially proved appealing to 87.5% (n = 7) of clinicians and 85.7% (n = 6) of adults with SCI. Similarly, generating user-determined goals was initially supported by 70% of participants. Qualitative analysis of participant comments then yielded 4 themes regarding the format: (1) lists act as prompts, (2) priorities change, (3) goals and outcomes cause confusion, and (4) support for a different format.

Lists acts as prompts

Most participants expressed reluctance to rate a long list of MSCs features that were either unnecessary for activities being performed or not relevant to their needs. Twelve participants (80%) indicated that a shorter list of features could be useful for prompting discussions between users and clinicians during MSC assessments. All expert clinicians suggested that a list of important MSC features might be used for less-experienced clinicians engaged in assessments with experienced MSC users. Similarly, adults with SCI felt that lists might prompt discussion with clinicians on new features or problems with current MSC performance.

Priorities change

Most participants initially supported selecting a subset of features from a longer list. However 5 adults with SCI and 7 expert clinicians described how priorities for MSC features and performance changed as MSCs were assessed and discussed. These changes could be triggered by incompatibilities between MCS features or realization that an MSC feature facilitating performance of one activity negatively affected performance of another. For example, tilt-in-space facilitated postural positioning in MSCs but added weight (making propelling and manoeuvring more difficult) and was incompatible with folding frames (affecting portability). Adults with SCI described how MSC features and performance needed for the home environment may be different than those needed

when travelling, requiring compromises on some features. Implementing a user-selected subset of features therefore appeared complex in practice.

Goals and outcomes cause confusion

When asked about goal- or outcomes-based questionnaires, all adults with SCI initially expressed goals and outcomes in terms of MSC features they deemed critical. When prompted further, they outlined performance of specific functional activities that these features would facilitate. For example, one participant identified tilt-in-space as a critical goal or outcome for his new MSC, and then explained that this feature was necessary to facilitate positioning. Clinicians tended to express goals and outcomes initially in terms of functional activities being undertaken. After further prompting, they described the specific MSC features that facilitated this. The responses suggested that constructing the questionnaire to focus on goals or outcomes could cause confusion between adults with SCI and clinicians.

Support for a different format

None of the 3 proposed formats gained support from the majority of participants. Most participants (n = 12; 80%) wanted another questionnaire format that included MSC features and MSC performance during completion of activities.

Phase 2: Developing an item bank

The review of research yielded 131 possible indicators of MSC usability. Interview transcripts with MSC experts were scrutinized and quantitative data on MSC features were extracted. Data were ranked according to the mean rating of importance given by participants (Table 3). Comparative data from a published study were also extracted into the same table.25 Seat shape, seat cushioning, and back support cushioning were reported as separate items.4,6,25 A further 13 possible indicators were generated through these expert judgments.

Indicators were reviewed to remove duplicates and combine like items. For example, “seat design - cut out,” “seat design - full opening,” and “seat


design-bite” were combined into a single item, “seat shape.” The final item bank of possible usability indicators included 19 MSC features and 23 MSC performance items.

Phase 3: Constructing the preliminary questionnaire

After reviewing data from phases 1 and 2, we made decisions about the questionnaire’s content and format to construct the electronic Mobile Shower Commode Assessment Tool (eMAST-d). Possible usability indicators extracted from only one data source in phase 2 were excluded from consideration. Indicators that appeared as MSC features but also affected MSC performance were selected for inclusion after discussion between the authors. Since qualitative data from phase 1 supported a format comprising both MSC features and MSC performance, the eMAST-d was constructed containing 25 questions in 3 sections. Section 1 contained 9 MSC features, and used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (very unhappy) to 5 (very happy). Section 2 covered 12 items

concerning MSC performance, rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Section 3 included the age in years of the MSC frame and seat and provided space for 3 positive and 3 negative aspects of the current MSC to capture specific user requirements. Because assessing unknown physical environments (such as hotel rooms) could be difficult, the context of use was restricted to the home environment.

Phase 4: Establishing content validity

Five expert clinicians with an average of 10.6 years of clinical experience (range, 5-12 years) were recruited (Table 4). Data from the standardized content evaluation questionnaire were extracted and converted into the content index Likert scale (Table 5). CVIs, that is, the proportion of content validity experts rating items as valid or highly valid, were then calculated. CVIs were 100% for all but one item (eMAST Section 2, MSC Performance - Comprehensiveness of domain/construct) (Table 5).

Table 3. Mean ratings and ranking for MSC features extracted during phase 2

MSC feature Mean rating of importance Mean rating in Nelson et al9

Seat cushioning 4.93 4.4a Hand access to genitals and the perianal area 4.93 4.2Seat shapeb 4.85 NAEase of rolling, turning, & propelling 4.80 4.3Reliability of brakes 4.80 4.2Ease of brake activation 4.60 4.0Easy to clean 4.60 NAPortable, transportable (folding or collapsible frame) 4.21 NAPostural supports 4.00 NAEase of moving and removing armrests 3.93 3.9Weight of MSC 3.93 3.8Adjustability of back support height 3.67 3.7Back support cushioning 3.67 4.4a Tilt-in-space 3.57 NAAddition of fitted pan underneath 3.43 3.2Addition of safety straps and belts 3.21 3.0Ease of moving and removing footrests 3.13 3.6Appearance of MSC 3.08 NAAdjustability of back support angle (recline) 3.07 3.2Addition of anti-tippers 3.00 NA

Note: MSC = mobile shower commode; NA = not assessed.aCushioning for the seat and back support were ranked as a single item by Nelson et al (1993)9 but later considered as separate features by Nelson et al (2000).7 bSeat shape was not assessed by Nelson et al (1993),9 but was reported as part of a later study.7


findings in phase 1 agree with emerging literature that suggest that the goals and outcomes associated with AT prescription and use may be understood differently by clinicians and AT users9,21,27 and that outcomes involve multiple constructs.1,9,10,21

The eMAST 1.0 assesses MSC features and performance during activities, identified through literature reviews and judgement of experts.2,4,6,7,25 It is consistent with conceptualizations of usability as it relates to AT10,16 and demonstrates that AT usability is both complex and multidimensional.10,16,27 By focusing on interactions between the user and the MSC, and characteristics of the MSC itself, the eMAST 1.0 may discriminate between MSC designs, therefore enabling comparisons during design, assessment, and prescription.11,12,27 The eMAST 1.0 complements usability inspection approaches evident in existing design and clinical assessment instruments.2,4,5 The eMAST 1.0 may also be administered after short- or long-term MSC use to determine if changes are needed.1,10,12 Soliciting user feedback at all stages of service delivery is associated with reducing user dissatisfaction and non-use of AT over time.13 The eMAST 1.0 may be useful for demonstrating outcomes of MSC provision,8,9,11 for generating evidence required as part of medical device regulations,11,12,14 and in future MSC research.8,9,11,12

As an electronic questionnaire, the eMAST 1.0 may be administered using telerehabilitation and telehealth platforms.6,18-20,28 This may encourage greater uptake in clinical settings where home visits cannot be undertaken, such as where clinicians are delivering services across large geographical areas.1,3,8,18,19,28

Table 4. Characteristics of content validity experts recruited for phase 4

Participant Clinical

qualification Clinical

experience, years Type of employment Geographical areas of practice

CVE 1 OT 15 Specialist SCI community service StatewideCVE 2 OT 5 Specialist SCI community service StatewideCVE 3 OT 10 Specialist SCI inpatient service Capital cityCVE 4 OT 12 Specialist SCI nongovernment community and

outreach serviceStatewide

CVE 5 OT 11 Private practice Capital city & regional centers

Note: CVE = content validity expert; OT = occupational therapist; SCI = spinal cord injury.

One content expert provided written comments, and 2 provided verbal comments to the first author. Three comments related to wording of items. Two suggested including brakes in Section 1, and one suggested removing the item on replacing the seat.

Phase 5: Constructing the final questionnaire

As the content validity established in phase 4 was high to very high, minimal changes were made to the questionnaire. An item on brakes was added to Section 1 and the item on ease of seat replacement was removed. Wording on showering and cleaning the body was altered to eliminate confusion with cleaning the MSC. Personal information including name and date of birth was also included. The final version, named the electronic Mobile Shower Commode Assessment Tool Version 1.0 (eMAST 1.0) is provided in the eAppendix.

Discussion

This study reports on development of a questionnaire testing MSC usability. The questionnaire, named the eMAST 1.0, is the first to measure MSC usability for adults with SCI, using the definition from ISO 9241:11-1998.4,17 The eMAST 1.0 is AT device-specific 8,9,11 and was developed using a standardized approach12,23 in consultation with users as recommended.9-12,21 The eMAST 1.0 builds on earlier studies using human factors and ergonomics approaches to design MSCs for adults with SCI that address issues of safety, dissatisfaction, and nonuse.7,25 The qualitative


Tabl

e 5.

C

alcu

lati

on o

f co

nte

nt

valid

ity

indi

ces

(CV

Is)

for

each

item

in t

he

stan

dard

ized

con

ten

t ev

alu

atio

n q

ues

tion

nai

re

Pro

por

tion

of

resp

onse

s on

the

con

ten

t in

dex

Lik

ert s

cale

, % (

n)

(n =

5)

Qu

esti

onn

aire

item

s

Ave

rage

sco

re

on c

onte

nt i

nd

ex L

iker

t sc

ale

(n=

5)H

igh

ly in

vali

dIn

vali

dSo

mew

hat

val

idV

alid

Hig

hly

val

idC

VIs

a

eMA

ST-d

Sec

tion

1: M

SC fe

atu

res

C

ompr

ehen

sive

nes

s of

dom

ain

/con

stru

ct4.

60

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

40 (

2)60

(3)

100

(5)

C

lari

ty o

f it

em w

ordi

ng

4.6

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)40

(2)

60 (

3)10

0 (5

)

Eas

e of

adm

inis

trat

ion

4.6

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)40

(2)

60 (

3)10

0 (5

)

App

ropr

iate

nes

s of

sca

le4.

60

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

40 (

2)60

(3)

100

(5)

eMA

ST-d

Sec

tion

2: M

SC p

erfo

rman

ce

Com

preh

ensi

ven

ess

of d

omai

n/c

onst

ruct

sca

le4.

20

(0)

0 (0

)20

(1)

40 (

2)40

(2)

80 (

4)

Cla

rity

of

item

wor

din

g4.

60

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

40 (

2)60

(3)

100

(5)

E

ase

of a

dmin

istr

atio

n4.

80

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

20 (

1)80

(4)

100

(5)

A

ppro

pria

ten

ess

of s

cale

4.6

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)40

(2)

60 (

3)10

0 (5

)

eMA

ST-d

Sec

tion

3: F

inal

qu

esti

onsb

C

ompr

ehen

sive

nes

s of

dom

ain

/con

stru

ct s

cale

4.2

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)80

(4)

60 (

3)10

0 (5

)

Cla

rity

of

item

wor

din

g4.

20

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

80 (

4)60

(3)

100

(5)

E

ase

of a

dmin

istr

atio

n4.

20

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

80 (

4)60

(3)

100

(5)

Ove

rall

con

ten

t val

idit

y of

eM

AST

-d

Obj

ecti

ve (

Th

e eM

AST

-d m

easu

res

MSC

u

sabi

lity

effe

ctiv

ely.

)4.

00

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

100

(5)

0 (0

)10

0 (5

)

Rel

evan

ce (

Th

e eM

AST

-d w

ill b

e u

sefu

l for

MSC

re

sear

ch.)

4.0

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)10

0 (5

)0

(0)

100

(5)

A

dmin

istr

atio

n (

Th

e eM

AST

-d c

an b

e

adm

inis

tere

d in

a r

easo

nab

le a

mou

nt

of t

ime.

)4.

20

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

80 (

4)20

.010

0 (5

)

Use

fuln

ess

for

MSC

sel

ecti

on4.

00

(0)

0 (0

)0

(0)

100

(5)

0 (0

)10

0 (5

)

Use

fuln

ess

for

mea

suri

ng

MSC

eff

ecti

ven

ess

4.0

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)10

0 (5

)0

(0)

100

(5)

U

sefu

lnes

s in

MSC

ou

tcom

es r

esea

rch

4.0

0 (0

)0

(0)

0 (0

)10

0 (5

)0

(0)

100

(5)

Not

e: e

MA

ST-d

= e

lect

ron

ic M

obile

Sh

ower

Com

mod

e A

sses

smen

t To

ol; M

SC =

Mob

ile S

how

er C

omm

ode.

a CV

Is w

ere

calc

ula

ted

by c

ombi

nin

g th

e pr

opor

tion

of

con

ten

t in

dex

Like

rt s

cale

item

s ra

ted

eith

er v

alid

or

hig

hly

val

id.

b Sect

ion

3 o

f th

e eM

AST

-d d

oes

not

use

a s

cale

. “A

ppro

pria

ten

ess

of s

cale

” w

as t

her

efor

e n

ot a

sses

sed.


Limitations

The study had 4 main limitations. First, evidence on MSC use and performance resides mostly in the grey literature4 and sources of usability indicators may have inadvertently been missed. Second, the sample size for interviews in phase 1 was small, and participants may not represent the full range of views across all adults with SCI and expert clinicians. Third, the eMAST 1.0 focuses on MSC use in the home and may not reflect usability across physical environments in rental or travel accommodation.6 Finally, the standardized methodology utilized recommended recruiting a panel of experts consisting of expert clinicians but not users.16, 23 Further psychometric evaluation with MSC users (adults with SCI) is needed before widespread adoption can be recommended.23

Conclusions

The eMAST 1.0 measures usability of MSCs from the perspective of adults with SCI. It combines MSC features and performance in use to test MSC usability and has demonstrated excellent content validity. The eMAST 1.0 may be useful for

clinical assessments of MSC after short- or long-term use, when gathering evidence required by medical device regulations, and in future research on MSCs for this population. Studies assessing the questionnaire’s psychometric properties are needed.

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of interest: The research is being conducted by Ms. Emma Friesen as part of a PhD program under the supervision of Associate Professor Trevor Russell and Professor Deborah Theodoros. There are no further declarations of conflicts of interest concerning this research.

Financial support/disclosures: The research is sponsored by the University of Queensland School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences and has not received external funding.

Statement of ethics: The study protocol was approved by the University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee. All ethical requirements outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia and the University of Queensland were followed during the course of this research. All participants gave written informed consent.

REFERENCES

1. Harvey LA, Chu J, Bowden JL, et al. How much equipment is prescribed for people with spinal cord injury in Australia, do they use it and are they satisfied 1 year later? Spinal Cord. 2012;50(9):676-681.

2. Spinal Outreach Team. Queensland Spinal Cord Injury Service, ed. Mobile Shower Commode (MSC) assessment & prescription tool for therapists. Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Queensland Health); 2013. http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qscis/documents/msc-assess.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2014.

3. Biering-Sørensen T, Hansen RB, Biering-Sørensen F. Home aids and personal assistance 10-45 years after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2009;47(5):405-412.

4. Friesen E, Theodoros D, Russell T. Clinical assessment, design and performance testing of mobile shower commodes for adults with spinal cord injury: An exploratory review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(4):267-274.

5. Ford S, Keay A, Skipper D, eds. Occupational therapy interventions for adults with a spinal cord injury – An overview. Chatswood, NSW: Agency for Clinical Innovation; 2014. http://www.aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/155191/

Occupational-Therapy-Interventions.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2014.

6. Friesen E, Theodoros D, Russell T. Use, performance and features of mobile shower commodes: Perspectives of adults with spinal cord injury and expert clinicians [published online ahead of print]. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013.

7. Nelson A, Malassigné P, Cors MW, Amerson TL. Promoting safe use of equipment for neurogenic bowel management. SCI Nurs. 2000;17(3):119-124.

8. Lenker JA, Scherer MJ, Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, DeRuyter F. Psychometric and administrative properties of measures used in assistive technology device outcomes research. Assist Technol. 2005;17(1):7-22.

9. Lenker JA, Harris F, Taugher M, Smith RO. Consumer perspectives on assistive technology outcomes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(5):373-380.

10. Arthanat S, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, Nochajski SM, Wu YW. Conceptualization and measurement of assistive technology usability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(4):235-248.

11. Bridgelal Ram M, Grocott PR, Weir HCM. Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development. Health Expect. 2008;11(1):63-71.


20. Hoffmann T, Cantoni N. Occupational therapy services for adult neurological clients in Queensland and therapists’ use of telehealth to provide services. Austral Occup Ther J. 2008;55(4):239-248.

21. Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Miller-Pogar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: Development of the Wheelchair Outcome Measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(5):275-285.

22. Crocker LM, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1986.

23. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.

24. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.

25. Nelson A, Malassigné P, Amerson T, Saltzstein R, Binard J. Descriptive study of bowel care practices and equipment in spinal cord injury. SCI Nurs. 1993;10(2):65-67.

26. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(5):508-518.

27. Gil-Agudo A, Solis-Mozos M, Del-Ama AJ, Crespo-Ruiz B, de la Pena-Gonzalez AI, Perez-Nombela S. Comparative ergonomic assessment of manual wheelchairs by paraplegic users. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(4):305-313.

28. Cox RJ, Amsters DI, Pershouse KJ. The need for a multidisciplinary outreach service for people with spinal cord injury living in the community. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(6):600-606.

12. Berg Rice VJ. Human factors in medical rehabilitation equipment: Product development and usability testing. In: Jacobs K, ed. Ergonomics for Therapists. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby; 2008:151-172.

13. Martin JK, Martin LG, Stumbo NJ, Morrill JH. The impact of consumer involvement on satisfaction with and use of assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6(3):225-242.

14. Magnier C, Thomann G, Villeneuve F, Zwolinski P. Methods for designing assistive devices extracted from 16 case studies in the literature. Int J Interactive Design Manufactur. 2012;2(2):93-100.

15. Cooper RA. Introduction. In: Cooper RA, Ohnabe H, Hobson DA, eds. An Introduction to Rehabilitation Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis; 2007:1-18.

16. Arthanat S, Wu YWB, Bauer SM, Lenker JA, Nochajski SM. Development of the Usability Scale for Assistive Technology-Wheeled Mobility: A preliminary psychometric evaluation. Technol Disabil. 2009;21(3):79-95.

17. International Organisation for Standardardization. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on Usability. Geneva: Author; 1998.

18. Middleton JW, McCormick M, Engel S, et al. Issues and challenges for development of a sustainable service model for people with spinal cord injury living in rural regions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(10):1941-1947.

19. Hauber RP, Michael LJ, Ma AJT, Vesmarovich S, Victoria LP. Extending the continuum of care after spinal cord injury through telerehabilitation. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 1999;5(3):11-20.

Development, construction, and content validation of a questionnaire to test mobile shower commode usability

Documents